Agriculture and Human Values 17: 49–63, 2000.

© 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Traditional knowledge and pest management in the Guatemalan highlands

Helda Morales1 and Ivette Perfecto2

1 Departamento de Agroecologı́a, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur. San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, México; 2 School of Natural
Resources and Environment, The University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Accepted in revised form May 5, 1999

Abstract. Adoption of integrated pest management (IPM) practices in the Guatemalan highlands has been limited
by the failure of researchers and extensionists to promote genuine farmer participation in their efforts. Some
attempts have been made to redress this failure in the diffusion-adoption process, but farmers are still largely
excluded from the research process. Understanding farmers’ agricultural knowledge must be an early step toward
a more participatory research process. With this in mind, we conducted a semi-structured survey of 75 Cakchiquel
Maya farmers in Patzún, Guatemala, to begin documenting their pest control practices. Their responses revealed
that their understanding of biological and curative pest control is limited. However, their broad knowledge of
cultural preventive pest control practices could explain why they had faced few pest problems in their traditional
milpa (intercrop of corn, beans, and other edible plants). The majority of these preventive practices are probably
efficient and environmentally innocuous.

Key words: Cakchiquel, Corn, Cultural control, Curative practices, Guatemala, Local knowledge, Pest
management, Preventive practices, Traditional knowledge

Abbreviations: CATIE = Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (Center for Research and
Education in Tropical Agronomy); COCADI = Coordinadora Cakchiquel para el Desarrollo Integral (Cakchiquel
Coordinating Group for Integrated Development); DIGESA = Dirección General de Servicios Agrícolas (General
Office of Agricultural Services); CRSP = Collaborative Research Support Program; ECOSUR = El Colegio
de la Frontera Sur; IPM = Integrated pest management; USAID = United States Agency for International
Development

Helda Morales trained in biology in her native Guatemala, and in integrated pest management in Costa Rica,
focused on the social aspects of pest control for her doctorate at the School of Natural Resources and Environment
(The University of Michigan). She is now a Research Associate in the Agroecology Department of El Colegio de la
Frontera Sur (ECOSUR) in San Cristobal de Las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico. Her research ranges from traditional
Mayan knowledge to tri-trophic interactions for pest control.

Ivette Perfecto is an Associate Professor at the School of Natural Resources and Environment at The University
of Michigan, where she teaches courses in agroforestry, tropical ecosystems, and field ecology. Her research
interests include tropical forest disturbance and biodiversity in agroecosystems. She divides her time between
Ann Arbor, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Mexico, and her native Puerto Rico.

Introduction developing pest management strategies (Vandermeer

As in other Third World countries, the use of synthetic
pesticides in Guatemala is alarming. From 1990 to
1994, US inspectors retained 3,081 shipments of
produce from the Guatemalan highlands because of
pesticide residues (Thrupp et al., 1995). Still more
alarming, 70.4% of farmers surveyed reported symp-
toms consistent with pesticide poisoning (Hoppin,
1991). Recognizing the major environmental disrup-
tions caused by synthetic pesticides, agricultural plan-
ners now commonly use ecological knowledge in
and Andow, 1986; Andow and Rosset, 1990). Never-
theless, despite the many efforts to introduce inte-
grated pest management (IPM) technologies in the
Guatemalan highlands (Fisher, 1994; Murray, 1995;
IPM-CRSP, 1996), the prevalence of pesticide-related
problems (Hoppin, 1991; Morales et al., 1994; Conroy
et al., 1996) is proof that IPM adoption is far from
widespread.
One of the shortcomings of the traditional
diffusion-adoption approach to agricultural exten-
sion is its failure to incorporate participatory and
50 H ELDA M ORALES AND I VETTE P ERFECTO
multidisciplinary research. Nelson (1994), in her work
with Nicaraguan farmers and IPM scientists, demon-
strated that when farmers participate in the research
process, they are more willing to adopt IPM tech-
nology. The lesson seems simple, and has been
promoted by the participatory research movement
since the early 80s: change agents should ask their
clients what they want, and include them in the whole
research process (Chambers, 1983).
Understanding farmers’ traditional agricultural
knowledge must be an early step in participatory
research. By traditional agricultural knowledge we
understand the cultural and technical knowledge that
farmers in a specific area have. Farmers inherit part
of this knowledge from their ancestors and build upon
it constantly based upon other sources of information
and their own experiments and experience. The rich-
ness of this knowledge is often enormous (Gliessman,
1981; Altieri, 1984; Oldfield and Alcorn, 1987;
Posey and William, 1989; Gómez-Pompa and Kaus,
1992). Major development institutions, such as the
World Bank and the United States Agency for Inter-
national Development (USAID), now include tradi-
tional knowledge in their discourse (Warren, 1991).
In Guatemala, recuperation of traditional agricultural
knowledge among the Quekchís in the northeastern
highlands (Altertec, 1996), and among the Quichés in
the northwest (Aguilar, 1993) is underway. However,
efforts to document traditional knowledge are in their
infancy and are not part of mainstream agricultural
research and extension programs in Guatemala or
elsewhere.
In addition to documenting the traditional knowl-
edge of the farmers, it is important to understand
the ecological mechanisms behind their practices
(Gliessman, 1981; Vanek, 1989; De Walt, 1994). This
is vital to application of traditional practices to new
situations. For example, understanding the mechan-
isms involved in the utilization of vetiver grass (Vetiv-
eria zizanioides) for soil and moisture conservation
in India, allowed farmers around the world to adopt
and benefit from this traditional practice (Greenfield,
1989).
Furthermore, and more importantly, the under-
standing of the traditional practices by outsiders may
be useful for the empowerment of farmers at the local
level (Freire, 1968; Patton, 1990; De Walt, 1994;
Barzman et al., 1996; Sillitoe, 1998). Empowerment
through the understanding of traditional knowledge
has been essential for the organization of grass-
roots projects in Bolivia, Chile, México, and Nigeria
(Altieri, 1984). Thrupp (1989) argues that farmers’
knowledge, with or without scientific validation, can
serve as a basis for their empowerment. She also
argues that the value of traditional knowledge may
not be understandable by Westernized scientists taking
a reductionist approach. We contend, however, that
when “experts” in countries like Guatemala treat
indigenous farmers as ignorant and stubborn (e.g.,
García, 1994; Santízo et al., 1996), traditional agri-
cultural knowledge is inevitably degraded. In such
cases, validation of traditional knowledge is neces-
sary both for empowerment of farmers and education
of research and development workers. The strengths
and weaknesses of traditional knowledge should be
presented to agricultural scientists and policy makers
in a language that they understand: “the language
of science” (Moles, 1989). This should, theoreti-
cally, improve communication between farmers and
agronomists (Slikkerveer, 1989; Nelson, 1994).
In the highlands of Guatemala, traditional farmers
have, until recently, faced few pest problems. The
apparent lack of pests may be due to cultural prac-
tices used for centuries by Mayan farmers. The recent
increase in pest populations is likely due to application
of pesticides to the non-traditional crops that have been
introduced over the last two decades (Morales et al.,
1994). Traditional practices could present sustainable
alternatives to the use of pesticides in both traditional
and non-traditional crops.
Here, we initiate the documentation and valida-
tion of traditional farming practices in Patzún, a
Cakchiquel Maya town in the Guatemalan highlands.
Farmers in Patzún, fearful that their knowledge will
disappear because even their children disrespect their
traditional practices (Board of Directors, Cooperativa
San Bernardino, personal communication), welcomed
scientific validation of those practices. We catalog the
religious, environmental, and agricultural factors that
farmers in Patzún cite as controlling pests in their
fields. We also evaluate the agricultural practices from
an agroecological perspective with an eye to their
potential application in other agroecosystems.
Methods and study site
Patzún is a community with a rich agricultural
heritage, but its abrupt integration into the global
economy is eroding the traditional agricultural knowl-
edge of its Mayan inhabitants. The village is located
in the western Department of Chimaltenango, at an
altitude of 2,235 m. Ninety-three percent of the 36,000
habitants are Cakchiquels.
Since before the conquest, agriculture in the region
has centered on the traditional milpa, a polyculture
of maize with some combination of climbing beans,
fava beans, and different varieties of squash. In the
early 1980s, the basis of the local economy shifted to
production of non-traditional export crops (broccoli,
 T RADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE IN G UATEMALA
snow peas, and zucchini). The non-traditional crops
were introduced under a USAID program along
with a technological package of synthetic pesticides
and fertilizers. Nonetheless, many farmers are still
growing maize using low-input, traditional technology.
Between August, 1994 and March, 1997 one of us
(H. M.) lived in Patzún for approximately 15 months.
We conducted individual and group surveys, comple-
mented by field observations, in order to document and
assess traditional pest management practices among
Cakchiquel farmers.
Surveys allow broad population coverage but
can yield misleading information. Researchers and
respondents may, without realizing it, understand
questions in different ways (Clark and Schober,
1992). Furthermore, respondents’ perceptions of the
perspective of the interviewer’s beliefs or goals may
influence their responses (Clark and Schober, 1992).
Investigators must also take care in choosing the
format of the questionnaire. In preliminary research,
an open-response format can reveal the full range of
responses, but informants may not provide information
they perceive as self-evident or irrelevant (Schwarz
et al., 1992). Furthermore, a particular answer may
not occur to an informant answering an open-response
question although he or she believes it to be true,
making quantitative conclusions suspect (Schwarz
et al., 1992). Taking into account these potential
stumbling blocks, one of us (H. M.) conducted an
exploratory survey about traditional pest control prac-
tices to evaluate comprehension and interpretation
by Cakchiquels and a few members of other Maya
language groups. She interviewed eleven individuals
and conducted two focus groups in August, 1994. The
first focus group was comprised of seven members of
the board of directors of an agricultural cooperative
in Patzún whom H. M. had met during a previous
study. The second was a group of four former farmers
who are her friends and members of the Pastoral
Indígena of the Catholic Church in Guatemala City.
The Pastoral Indígena works within the Guatemalan
Catholic Church to promote inclusion of some aspects
of Mayan religion in the Catholic liturgy. She also
interviewed eleven individual farmers as she walked
with them through the streets of Patzún or in the nearby
fields. She asked farmers how they control pests in the
milpa, and who gives them agricultural advice.
The exploratory survey revealed several prob-
lems with the questions. Difficulties inevitably arose
because the interviews were conducted in Spanish, the
second language of the interviewees, who all speak
Mayan languages. For example, the majority of the
farmers in the individual interviews said that they
do not have gallina ciegas (white grubs); however,
when asked if they had ican (the Cakchiquel word
51
for white grubs), they all agree that white grubs were
common. The focus groups also revealed that farmers
have practices to “avoid” insect attacks, but that they
do not volunteer this information when asked how to
“control” them. Finally, according to the focus groups,
one of the most important practices to avoid insect
attacks is to plant and to harvest when the moon is
full. The majority of the farmers did not volunteer
this information until they were asked directly if they
organize their activities around the lunar cycle. They
explain that they hesitate to mention it as an agricul-
tural practice because some people consider it to be a
superstition and make fun of them. This exploratory
survey allowed us to redesign the questions, and to be
conscious of the possible problems with the survey.
We began using the modified survey in May, 1995,
conducting most of the interviews in the fields around
Patzún. We used a semi-structured interview with
open-ended questions to ask growers about practices
they believe to be effective against insect pests, and
to describe those practices. When farmers did not
mention practices already recorded, they were asked
their opinion on those practices as well. The questions
of the interview were:
• Do you have pests in your milpa?
• Are there insects that eat the milpa?
• Which insects eat the milpa?
• Do insects cause economic losses in the milpa?
• Why you do not have problems with insects in
your milpa?
• What should be done to avoid insects or insect
damage in the milpa?
• What do you do when insects are eating your
milpa?
• Are there animals that kill the insects that eat the
milpa?
• Who taught you how to plant?
• Who gives you agricultural advice?
We selected interviewees who plant milpa and were
willing and available to participate. We tried to include
an equal number of traditional and non-traditional
farmers, those older and younger than 40, and men and
women. By “traditional” and “non-traditional” farmers
we mean people who grow just milpa, as opposed
to those who also grow non-traditional crops such as
broccoli and snow peas.
In total, we interviewed 75 people, 30 tradi-
tional farmers and 45 non-traditional ones, 38 people
younger than 40, 37 older than 40, 58 men and 17
women. The reason for the disparity between men and
women is that the majority of the older women could
not speak Spanish or did not feel confident enough
in Spanish to be interviewed. Also some of them did
not want to talk with us. At the time that the inter-
52 H ELDA M ORALES AND I VETTE P ERFECTO
views were conducted, there was a rumor that gringas
were kidnapping children in the area. Unfortunately,
despite being Guatemalan, H. M. was perceived as a
foreigner, and women with small children were afraid
of her. Furthermore, some women thought that she
could learn more about agriculture by talking with
men, and they called their husbands even though she
insisted that she wanted to know their own opinions.
The first interviewed farmers were members of the
board of directors of the Cooperativa San Bernardino.
The cooperative gives credit to plant broccoli, provides
inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides, and negotiates
sales to export companies. The board of directors is
formed of leaders from Patzún and the surrounding
villages, who gave H. M. advice and put her in contact
with other farmers that they thought would give
her valuable information. Thus, the majority of the
early interviews were with “non-traditional farmers.”
However, the community of friends that H. M. made
in Patzún helped us with the interviews by teaching
her basic entomological Cakchiquel, helping us inter-
pret the results of the interviews, and introducing her
to their neighbors, friends, family members, and the
elders. These social links gave us the opportunity to
interview a range of people that we believe provide a
good representation of the whole community. Among
them were full-time farmers, landless farm workers,
the director of a development project, agricultural
export company workers, Catholic priests and catech-
ists, Protestant ministers, and teachers, all of whom
plant milpas.
The percentage of farmers’ providing particular
responses was calculated for each question to indicate
the relative importance of each practice among Patzu-
neros. These percentages likely underestimate the
actual fraction of farmers employing each practice, as
a given practice may not have occurred to all inter-
viewees at the moment of the interview. The number
of farmers answering each question (n), may differ
from question to question, since in some cases, not all
the questions were asked in an interview. Some of the
most representative answers are cited as a direct quote
in Spanish, with an English translation.
Given the inevitable problems associated with
surveys, the first author also made direct observations
of the agricultural practices of some growers. She
spent several hours in the fields with four farmers.
As she watched them at work, they had long conver-
sations about their agricultural practices and those of
their neighbors.
Results and discussion
The concept of pests
Plagas quiere estudiar usté? La milpa no tiene
plagas seño (Guillermo Teleguario).
You want to study pests? The milpa does not have
pests, miss.
When H. M. started interviewing farmers in Patzún
to assess their traditional pest control practices she
was surprised by the answer of Guillermo Teleguario.
Don Guillermo, former mayor of Patzún, was at that
time the president of Cooperativa San Bernardino.
Although he likely thought her ignorant, he introduced
her to several of the farmers that she interviewed,
because he believes in the importance of the validation
of traditional knowledge. The answer was the same,
from the 75 interviewed farmers, 54% said that they do
not have pests in their milpa. We did not understand.
It was impossible that the majority of the farmers had
not noticed the insects we had seen eating their crops.
Of course they had noticed. Because Spanish is
the second language in Patzún and we do not speak
more than 10 words of Cakchiquel, we were painfully
aware of the language barrier. We suspected that the
problem was with the word plaga (pest). We noticed
a problem with the word plaga since the pre-survey,
but we decided that it would be interesting to see
if the response was the same among all the farmers.
Nevertheless, after talking with Guillermo Teleguario,
we added another question and asked if there were
“insects” that eat the milpa. Ninety-nine percent of the
farmers said that in fact there were.
The interviewed farmers mentioned 18 different
groups of insects (Table 1). The insects mentioned
most commonly were weevils, white grubs, moths,
beetles, caterpillars, and aphids. Some farmers also
mentioned wireworms, mites, crickets, scales, flies,
leafhoppers, and ants. The list of insects that they
mentioned is similar to the one developed by IPM
experts (CATIE, 1990). IPM scientists recognized
22 species of insects and mites as the main pests
that attack corn in Central America. Among the four
families that farmers did not mentioned, three of them
are difficult to observe without actively searching for
them. Cydnidae bugs are less than 8 mm long and
hide among roots, Pyralidae larvae bore into the stalks
of corn, and Eriophyidae mites are impossible to see
without lenses (Borror et al., 1989). Farmers may
recognize the fourth family, but they only mentioned
gorgojos (weevils). They do not seem to differentiate
between Curculionidae and Bostrichidae. On the other
hand, IPM scientist did not mentioned wooly bear
caterpillars, aphids, crickets, white scales, and flies as
important corn pests in Central America. Nevertheless
 T RADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE IN G UATEMALA 53
Table 1. Herbivorous arthropods in corn mentioned by farmers (N = 64) in Patzún, Guatemala, (1994–1996),
compared with herbivorous insects recognized as pests by IPM scientists in corn in Central America (CATIE,
1990).

Mentioned by Mentioned by scientists English name % of farmers

farmers

Gorgojos Curculionidae: Sitophilus, Weevils 63.2

Bostrichidae: Rhizopetha
Ican Scarabaeidae: Phyllophaga White grubs 47.1
Jut Noctuidae: Agrotis, Mocis Hairless caterpillars 23.5
Gusano del elote Noctuidae: Heliothis Corn earworm 23.5
Cogollero Noctuidae: Spodoptera Fall armyworm 23.5
Chomochı́ ∗ Wooly bear caterpillars 23.5
Tortuguillas Chrysomelidae: Diabrotica, Cerotoma Leaf beetles 19.1
Pulgón ∗ Aphids 13.2
Hormiga negra Formicidae: Acromyrmex, Atta, Solenopsis Ants 4.4
Palomillas Gelechiidae: Sitotroga Grain moths 3.7
Gusano alambre Elateridae: Aeolus Wireworms 2.9
Grillo ∗ Crickets 2.9
Sak Acrididae: Schistocerca Grasshoppers 2.9
Aradores, acaros Tetranychidae: Oligonychus, Tetranychus Spider mites 2.9
Salta hoja Cicadellidae Leafhoppers 1.5
Escama blanca ∗ White scales 1.5
Mosca ∗ Flies 1.5
∗ Cydnidae: Cyrtomenus Burrower bugs 0
∗ Pyralidae: Elasmopalpus, Diatrea Snout/grass moths 0
∗ Eriophyidae: Eriophyes Gall mites 0

∗ = not mentioned.

corn has been reported as a host of all these insects
elsewhere (Saunders et al., 1983). In sum, we can say
that farmers can recognize at least the majority of the
insect families identified by scientists.
Besides knowing the herbivorous insects in the
milpa, the farmers also know the Spanish word plaga.
While listing the insects that eat the milpa, the farmers
often mentioned for comparative purpose the plagas in
the non-traditional crops. Their Spanish was not the
problem with our first question. The problem was our
concept of pest: “every herbivorous arthropod in a crop
is a pest or potential pest.” For the farmers in Patzún,
the concept is more sophisticated: An herbivore that
does not cause economic damage is not a pest. They
do not classify the insects as pests because they do not
cause economic losses in the milpa. Their approach
is in some ways similar to the IPM central concept
of “economic threshold.” Under the IPM philosophy,
the application of a control is not justified if the “pest”
does not reach the economic threshold. In other words,
if pest control would cost more than the decrease
in yield that the pest would cause, control is not
recommended (Horn, 1988).
What controls pests?
Understanding the Patzunero concept of “pest” helped
us recover from our worries. We realized that although
our preconception of the outcome of the surveys was
flawed, we would actually learn something much more
important than we had imagined before we started
interviewing. We had expected to compile a list of
traditional practices such as the application of botan-
ical insecticides and incense burning to control and/or
repel insects. We understood then that such curative
pest control activities were largely unnecessary in
the traditional milpa, since sixty percent of them
mentioned that the insects do not cause economic
losses in the milpa. The important question to address
was why the herbivorous insects do not reach pest
status in the first place.
Farmers in Patzún explain the absence of pest prob-
lems by the weather and soil conditions in the area,
their tolerance of insect damage, their religious beliefs,
and the agricultural methods that they practice (Table
2). Farmers mentioned that the weather and soil condi-
tions in Patzún are favorable for corn, and for this same
54 H ELDA M ORALES AND I VETTE P ERFECTO
Table 2. Patzún farmers’ opinions on why insects in the milpa
do not reach economic levels (N = 37).
Explanations % of farmers
Damage is avoided with agronomic practices 64.9
Insects do no eat much 24.3
Milpa is strong 18.9
Damage is accepted 16.2
Cold weather 13.5
God protects the milpa 8.1
Soil is appropriate for the milpa 2.7
reason herbivorous insects are almost non-existent.
They mentioned that on the Pacific coast of Guatemala
the milpa is often attacked by insects because of the
warm weather.
Their observations on the effect of abiotic factors
over insects are supported by the literature that reports
experiences in other areas. For example, it has
been reported that the fall armyworm, (Spodoptera
frugiperda) causes much more severe damage in the
lowlands of Central America than in the highlands
(King and Saunders, 1984). In the lowlands of Mexico
as well, milpas cultivated using practices similar to
those used in Patzún can have serious problems with
insect pests (Ucán Ek et al., 1982). Apparently, the
lower temperatures in the highlands are a shield that
Patzuneros have against herbivorous insects.
Soil can be another important factor that influences
insect development. For example, the observations of
Wightman and Wightman (1994) in Africa that sandy
or loamy soils favor white grubs seem to corroborate
the observations of some farmers in Patzún: “crops
growing on sandy soils suffer more pest attacks.”
So, as Patzuneros affirm, temperature and soil in
Patzún contribute to the apparent lack of insect prob-
lems in the milpa, but they are not the only explanation.
The principal evidence that abiotic factors are not
enough to control pests are the severe problems that
farmers in the area have with herbivorous insects in
the non-traditional crops (Morales et al., 1994; Thrupp
et al., 1995; Conroy et al., 1996).
Their tolerance of pest damage and the fact that
corn is part of farmers’ religion also explain in part
the lack of pest attacks in the milpa, contrasting
with the non-traditional crops. Cakchiquel religion
determines the care that farmers give to their milpas,
but no religious guidelines exist for non-traditional
crops. Non-traditional crop management is directed by
outsiders, who are not as tolerant of cosmetic damage
as Cakchiqueles. Most of the farmers mentioned that
they share their corn with the animals, and for some of
them to share with the animals is part of their religious
beliefs:
El maíz tiene gusanos pero yo no lo rechazo, no soy
como las compañías que rechazan el brócoli porque
lleva gusano (Fabián Teleguario).
The corn has worms but I do not reject it, I am not
like the export companies that reject the broccoli
because it has a worm.
Aunque las gallinas ciegas se coman algunas
plantas lo que se pierde es un quintal de maíz. Hay
que compartir con los animales (Hipólito Miculax).
Even if the white grubs eat some plants, we lose
only 100 pounds of corn. We should share with the
animals.
Llamamos a Monseñor Julio para que viniera a
bendecir a los insectos. La gente no quiere destruir
los animales. Hay que evitarlos, cada animal tiene
su función (Angela López).
We call on Bishop Julio to come pray for the insects.
We do not want to destroy the animals. We should
avoid them. Each animal has its function.
El maíz es sagrado, incluso si hay un maicito tirado
se recoge, se le habla al tamal, y a la tortilla,
porque va a ser parte del hombre. Se siembran los
tres colores: blanco, amarillo, negro. La abuela
Ixmucané los mezcló. Cuando se cosecha se le echa
incienso. Todos se levantan a las 5 de la mañana y
se encienden velas y se reza (Jacinto Pelicó).
Corn is sacred; even if there is only one small grain
on the ground, we pick it up; we talk with the
tamal (cornmeal, that may or may not be mixed with
a sauce made with ground squash seeds, roasted
peppers, tomatoes and meat, wrapped in corn husks
or plantain leaves, and cooked by steaming) and the
tortilla because they will become part of our own
bodies. We plant the three colors: white, yellow, and
black. The goddess Ixmucané mixed them. For the
harvest we burn incense. Everybody wakes up at 5
AM and we burn candles and we pray.
Jacinto explained that according to the Mayan reli-
gion, humans are made from corn dough, and the three
colors of corn represent all the peoples’ colors. By
mixing them in the milpa, they venerate the goddess
Ixmucané who will “let all the races be together.”
As Jacinto, eight percent of the farmers interviewed
mentioned that corn is not attacked by insects because
it is protected by God.
Since the fact that corn is central to Mayan reli-
gion and culture has already been well documented
(Asturias, 1949; Ucán Ek et al., 1982; Aguilar,
1993; Terán and Rasmussen, 1994), we, as ecologists,
will now focus on the merit of Patzuneros’ agricul-
 T RADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE IN G UATEMALA 55

tural practices according to agroecological theory and Table 3. Preventive agricultural practices that avoid insect
economic damage, according to farmers in Patzún (N = 51).
experiences in other geographical areas.
% of farmers
mentioning
Agronomic practices practice

The majority of the farmers mentioned that they I. Preventive practices in the field
prevent insect attacks by using agronomic practices. Choose the appropriate terrain for corn: non- 5.9
They mentioned 26 preventive practices that help repel flat, non-muddy, sandy
insects or make plants resistant to insect attacks in Do not plant fava beans in the milpa after 2.0
the field and in storage (Table 3). The rest of this non-traditional crops
section will describe these preventive practices as well Let the hens into the field before planting, so 3.9
as some reactive ones and, where possible, evaluate the that they can eat the worms
practices based on the agroecological literature. Apply ashes and/or lime to avoid ants, wire- 6.0
worms, and white grubs
Preventive practices in the field Use organic fertilizer 15.7
Good soil nutrition 4.0
In the field, preventive practices start with the selection
Disinfect organic fertilizer 9.8
of the appropriate terrain and finish with manage-
ment of crop residues. According to the farmers, it is Respect planting dates 11.8
important to choose the appropriate land to plant since Plant when the moon is full 23.5
characteristics of the soil and its previous management Plant more than needed 2.0
may affect insect populations. For example, one farmer Plant corn with beans to avoid beetles 2.0
mentioned that in muddy terrain, white grubs could Plant miltomate (Physalis sp.) in the milpa 2.0
destroy entire cornfields, while in drier soils they are Harvest when the moon is full 21.6
not a problem. However, other farmers have observed Do not bury the corn stalk (to avoid white 11.8
more pest attacks in sandy soils. grubs)
Since the introduction of the non-traditional crops Bury the corn stalk to feed the white grub 2.0
in the area, farmers often rotate the milpa with Protect the natural enemies 3.9
broccoli or snow peas. Some farmers recommended Plant trees to attract birds that eat the worms 2.0
not planting fava beans in the milpa in fields from
which non-traditional crops have just been harvested II. Preventive practices in storage
to avoid aphid attacks. Do not over dry the corn before putting it in 9.8
Once they have selected the appropriate site, it storage
is time to prepare the soil. Some farmers let their Do not cover the storage with tin roof, use tile 15.7
hens in the field for two or three days to allow them or straw
to eat the insects from the up-turned soil and help Save husk to avoid weevils in the storage 1.4
diminish insect attacks later. A few farmers mentioned Store corn in a silo 2.0
that before planting they applied lime or ashes to the Apply lime in storage to avoid weevils 2.0
soil to reduce ants, wireworms, and white grubs. The
application of lime or ashes to the soil to reduce soil
pests is a very common practice among indigenous
groups in America (Altieri and Trujillo, 1987; Aguilar, to Abelardo Martínez, they cannot plant before March
1993; Altertec, 1996). Lime, ashes, and other inert because of frost: “Si siembro antes lo mata la helada.”
powders obstruct insect tracheas and damage their The corn cycle in Patzún is very long, around nine
cuticles and have been used successfully to control months from planting to harvest. Farmers strive to be
pests in the field and in the storage (Golob, 1997). the first to harvest and get the best prices. Planting
Lime applications to the soil are effective to control at the beginning of March would allow them to do it.
white grubs (Vittum, 1984; Potter et al., 1996). Ashes Nevertheless, they wait until the end of March, when
also have been used successfully to control a leaf miner everybody is ready to plant more or less at the same
(Liriomyza huidrobensis) in potatoes (Raymundo and time. According to their experience all the animals
Alcazar, 1983). are attracted to their plots if they plant ahead of time:
Planting dates also are very important for avoiding “Mi papá sembró los primeros días de marzo y solo
insect damage in Patzún. Most of the farmers plant at la mitad del elote encontró” (my father planted during
the end of March or beginning of April. According the first days of March and he found only half of the
56 H ELDA M ORALES AND I VETTE P ERFECTO
corn in the cob) (Mariano Jocholá). This observation
is related to the ecological theory of predator satiation
(Heliövaara et al., 1994; Kelly, 1994). The mass emer-
gence of corn plants creates peaks in food availability
for herbivores that are able to consume only a small
fraction of the plants, keeping overall herbivore popu-
lations low because of low food availability the rest of
the time. In fact, this concept has been applied in IPM
programs with the establishment of mandatory harvest
and planting dates (Horn, 1988; Hruska and Gómez,
1997).
Farmers also recommend not to plant after San
Antonio’s day (June 13th), since it is God’s will, and
it will be impossible to harvest anything. Guillermo
Teleguario has another explanation for this:
Es mejor sembrar antes por que cuando vienen las
lluvias salen los insectos y se comen a la milpa y
si está chiquita no aguanta, no crece la mata ni los
jilotes.
It is better to plant before because when the rains
come, the insects appear and they eat the milpa and
if it is small it does not bear up. Neither the plant
nor the ears grow.
As a result of the climatic characteristics of the area
and insect ecology, all the farmers in Patzún plant their
corn over a period of two months. The exact date to
plant is chosen according to the lunar cycle. To plant
when the moon is full was the practice most often
mentioned to avoid insect attacks; twenty-four percent
of the farmers said that if they plant when the moon is
full, the plants grow stronger and resist insect damage.
Many cultures use lunar agricultural calendars (Ucán
Ek et al., 1982; Altieri and Trujillo, 1987; Thrupp,
1989; Aguilar, 1993). Beliefs about the moon’s effect
on farming are so widespread that it is reasonable to
hypothesize that the moon’s cycle may have an effect
on crops and animals, but no ecological or physical
mechanism to explain this practice has been demon-
strated. It is possible that lunar planting and harvesting
dates permit farmers to synchronize their activities to
the day across a landscape, potentially maximizing
predator satiation. In this sense, lunar planting and
harvesting may be related to planting synchrony as
used in integrated pest management programs (see
above).
Besides planting at the right moment, another
strategy used to avoid insect damage is to plant more
than is needed. The majority of the farmers plant 4
corn seeds per hole: “Una para el pájaro, una para
la hormiga, una para mi, y una para el vecino”
(one seed is for the bird, one for the ant, one for
me, and one for the neighbor). This is related to
the concept of sharing the food and accepting insect
damage mentioned before. Jacinto Pelicó explained
that many problems in the Mayan community started
with capitalism:
Antes ni se vendía el maíz, solo compartir, ahora
todo se comercializó y por eso las cosechas están
malas. Ahora el dinero es más importante.
In the past corn was not even sold, just shared,
now everything is commercialized and that is why
harvests are bad. Now money is the most important
thing.
The practice of sharing the crops and planting more
than needed may not be economically efficient. In fact,
the economic net revenue in the traditional milpa in
the area is very low (Hildebrand et al., 1977), but the
majority of the farmers are able to produce enough
corn for their own consumption. As Jacinto Pelicó
explained, trying to be “efficient” is the reason of
their economic problems. An analysis of the agricul-
tural commercialization in the Guatemalan highlands
shows that in fact this has been detrimental for the
economy and food security of the farmers (Immink and
Alarcón, 1993). The authors blame the lack of market
access, the fluctuating prices, and the inefficiency
of the marketing institutions. Furthermore, planting
more than needed is a practice recommended by IPM
scientist to minimize economic losses due to pests such
as Spodoptera frugiperda (King and Saunders, 1984;
CATIE, 1990).
In addition to planting more corn than they need,
farmers plant 2 bean seeds in the same hole. Some-
times fava beans or squash are planted in between.
Much of the rest of the remaining space is filled by
volunteer, edible or medicinal plants, such as milto-
mate (tomatillo, Physalis sp.), quilete (nightshade,
Solanum nigrum), chipilín (Crotalaria longitostrata),
colinabo (yellow turnip, Brassica napus), and mostaza
(turnip, Brassica rapa), that farmers foster. The impor-
tance of intercropping to avoid insect attacks has been
demonstrated by many researchers (for reviews see
Risch et al., 1983; Andow, 1991), but although all
the farmers in Patzún intercrop, it was only mentioned
as a practice to avoid insect attacks by two farmers.
One of them said that it is impossible to grow beans
without corn because of beetle attacks. Angela López
said that she plants miltomate to repel insects in the
milpa. This is in accordance with Thurston’s (1991)
finding that many traditional farming practices act to
control plant disease, but it is doubtful that farmers use
them specifically for disease control. It is interesting
that farmers in Patzún do deliberately use cultural prac-
tices for insect pest management, but not polycultures
that are so popular among agroecologists. The majority
of farmers may never have noticed the importance of
polycultures in pest management because they have
never planted corn in monoculture.
 T RADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE IN G UATEMALA
The second-most-mentioned practice to avoid pests
was the use of organic fertilizers. They affirm that
organic fertilization avoids insect damage in their
milpa. Farmers in Patzún argue that organic fertilizer
limits insect attacks because it is good for the soil
and therefore for the plant. Fourteen percent of the
farmers mentioned that organic fertilizers, compared
with synthetics, “are moist, they have more nutrients,
they are not washed away by the rain, and they last
longer.” As a consequence of these characteristics,
farmers explain that organic fertilizers are better for
the plant because they “do not burn them, they do not
make them grow too much, and for that reason plants
can resist wind and pests.” Traditionally, farmers in
Patzún use whatever materials they have available for
compost. The favorite materials are kitchen scraps and
cow manure. They also use harvest residues, straw,
horse manure, herbs, lime, ashes, and when they have
access to them, chicken manure and forest leaves.
Some farmers also use sheep, goat, and rabbit manure.
Although management of soil fertility is the most
important practice to prevent pests attacks according
to 20% of the farmers, we do not have enough
information to evaluate conclusively this practice.
Organic farming promoters around the world often
argue that organic fertilizer reduces pest populations,
but evidence for this in the literature is scant and
contradictory (Culliney and Pimentel, 1986; Eigen-
brode and Pimentel, 1988; Costello and Altieri, 1995;
Phelan et al., 1995; Letourneau et al., 1996). However,
controlled experiments that we conducted in Patzún
show that corn plants treated with organic fertilizer for
at least two years host fewer aphids than those treated
with synthetic fertilizer (Morales, 1998). According to
farmers, organic fertilizers are better for plants because
they make them resistant. The idea that a healthy plant
can resist insect attacks is popular among farmers and
scientists around the world but agricultural scientists
are just beginning to investigate this belief (Phelan et
al., 1995).
On the other hand, the conservation of natural
enemies of pests, a practice that is well know to the
scientific community, and frequently employed in IPM
programs does not seem to be part of the agricultural
knowledge of most farmers in Patzún. Some farmers
mentioned that it is important to protect the natural
enemies of pests (4%), and plant trees to attract birds
that eat insects (2%). Nevertheless, the majority of
the farmers in Patzún did not express awareness of
natural enemies that eat herbivorous insects in the
milpa. When asked if there are animals that kill the
insects that eat the milpa, only 10% of the farmers indi-
cated that other insects (Cicindelidae and Coccinell-
idae), lizards, toads, and birds are beneficial for the
control of herbivorous insects. The lack of knowl-
57
edge of natural enemies seems to be common among
farmers in Central America (Bentley, 1989, 1992). In
his study with farmers in Honduras, Bentley (1989,
1992) concludes that one reason for this gap in tradi-
tional knowledge is that natural enemies are difficult
to observe. In fact, farmers from another village inter-
viewed in a previous study (Morales et al., 1994)
had a similar explanation. They said jokingly that
before they attended workshops presented by Altertec
(a non-governmental organization promoting organic
agriculture in Guatemala), they could only recognize
organisms bigger than a rat. The use of natural enemies
is one of the most important tools in IPM, and farmers’
knowledge gap in this area could be remedied with
another important tool of Western science: the micro-
scope or hand lens. Unfortunately, farmers do not have
access to such tools.
Finally, according to Patzuneros, the management
of crop residues is also important for prevention of
insect attacks. Twelve percent of interviewees said
that to avoid white grub attacks, the corn stalk should
not be buried but should be burned or removed from
the field. In fact, Dix and colleagues (1995) found
that white grubs are more numerous near buried
corn stalks. Furthermore, many IPM textbooks (e.g.
Horn, 1988) stress elimination of crop residues as a
preventive practice for pest management. However,
one farmer mentioned that he buries the stalks to feed
the insects. He explained that otherwise the white
grubs would eat the corn roots.
Preventing pests in storage
Preventing pest problems in storage is also important
to farmers. Patzuneros’ preventive pest management
practices for stored grains can also be explained by
agroecological theory and results from scientific exper-
iments. Twenty-one percent of the farmers mentioned
that they harvest when the moon is full to avoid weevils
and moths in the stored grains. After the harvest in
December or January, Patzuneros leave the grain in
their courtyard to dry. Ten percent of the farmers
mentioned that it is necessary not to over-dry the corn
before they put it in storage to avoid weevil attacks.
This observation could possibly be explained by the
behavior of the natural enemies of the maize weevil
(Sitophilus zeamais). Populations of Anisopteromalus
calandrae, a parasitoid of the maize weevil, increase
when humidity increases (Smith, 1993). Furthermore,
IPM scientists in Central America have recognized
that letting corn dry in the field for too long increases
the exposure to weevil infestations, thereby increasing
economic damage (CATIE, 1990).
Sixteen percent of them mentioned that it is also
necessary to store the grains in a cool place. H. M.
58 H ELDA M ORALES AND I VETTE P ERFECTO

asked a woman who owns a pesticide store in Patzún Table 4. Practices used to control insect damage in the milpa
and stored grains in Patzún (N = 45).
which product she recommends for control of weevils
and moths. The woman looked at her in a funny way % of
and said that the granary should be covered with tile
farmers
or straw, not with tin roof because the latter makes
the room very hot, which increases insect attacks. I. Mechanical practices
Finally, explaining her odd look, she emphasized that Lime for white grubs and/or weevils 8.9
she does not recommend “products” for the control of Hoe for white grubs 2.2
weevils, since they are not worthwhile. It is interesting
that even local pesticide dealers recommend storing II. Botanical pesticides
the grains in a cool place instead of an insecticide. Chysanthemum (Chrysanthemum parthenium) 6.7
In fact, scientists (Birch, 1953; Throne, 1994) have American worm seed (Chenopodium ambrosioides) 2.2
long recognized the importance of the manipulation of Rue (Ruta sp.) 2.2
humidity and temperature to manage pests in stored Coriander (Coriandum sativum) 2.2
grains. According to Throne (1994), the maize weevil Marigold (Tagetes erecta) 2.2
will not develop at relative humidity levels below 43%
and at temperatures below 15 ◦ C or above 35 ◦ C. III. Synthetic pesticides
A few farmers also mentioned that they keep the Powdered poison for wireworms 2.2
husk covering the ear to avoid weevils in the granary. Lorsban for white grubs 4.4
However, other farmers argue that this practice should Folidol for ants 2.2
be avoided because of rat attacks. Several farmers said Fumigol for everything 2.2
that it is very effective to use a silo instead of a granary Poison for aphids 4.4
to avoid insect attacks, but since most cannot afford
Pesticide for beetles 15.6
silos ($50), only a few farmers (2%) in Patzún use
Poison for treehoppers 2.2
them to store their grain.
Finally, 11% of those interviewed think that organic Poison for weevils 15
fertilizers reduce pest attacks not only in the field but
also in storage. They said that beans and corn fertilized
with organic manure or compost suffer fewer weevils
and moth attacks in the granary. To our knowledge, that pests are becoming more prevalent and that they
this has not been studied. The same mechanisms that should do something to eliminate them. To manage
reduce pest attacks in plants fertilized with organic insect pests in the milpa, Patzuneros use mechanical
fertilizer in the field may be responsible for pest controls as well as botanical and synthetic pesticides
reduction in the granary. (see Table 4).
In sum, farmers in Patzún employ a broad array Lime is sometimes used to control white grubs in
of methods to prevent insect attacks in their milpas the field and weevils in stored grains (9% of farmers).
and stored grains. The majority of these practices are Honduran farmers also successfully use lime to control
popular among promoters of sustainable, ecological pests in stored grains (Hoppe, 1986). As discussed
agriculture, but some of them have not been studied earlier, inert powders such as lime can control insects
or are poorly understood by scientists. That is the case by mechanically damaging their tracheae and cuticles
for the most popular practices among the people in (Vittum, 1984; Potter et al., 1996).
Patzún: The use of the lunar calendar and the use of Another mechanical control mentioned by a few
organic fertilizers to prevent insect attacks. Given the farmers (2%) is to kill with the hoe the white grubs
importance that farmers in Patzún attribute to these found while working the soil.
two practices, the possible mechanisms involved merit More popular than the mechanical practices is
further study. With this in mind, we conducted the the use of pesticides. Botanical pesticides such as
experiment to evaluate the impact of traditional fertil- altamisa or pirulillo (Chrysanthemum parthenium),
ization practices on corn pests, which we mentioned apazote (Chenopodium ambrosioides), ruda (Ruta
above (Morales, 1998). sp.), culantro (Coriandum sativum), and flor de muerto
(Tagetes erecta) are applied by 15% of the farmers.
Curative practices All of the plants that they mentioned have been recog-
nized as effective insect repellents and insecticides by
Despite their vast agroecological knowledge, and scientists, and are used by farmers around the world.
although the majority of farmers do not consider Extracts of Chrysanthemum spp. were the active
insects pests a problem, one-third of the farmers think ingredient in some of the first commercialized insect-
 T RADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE IN G UATEMALA
icides in the late 1800s (Hansen, 1987). The botan-
ical insecticide extracted from Chrysanthemum spp.,
pyrethrum, has been replaced in modern agriculture
by synthetic pyrethroids (Hansen, 1987). Chenopo-
dium spp. toxicity has also been determined for several
species of insects, like seed beetles (Callosobruchus
maculatus), the rice weevil (Sitophilus oryzae), and
the Japanese beetle (Popillia japonica) (Leach and
Johnson, 1925; Su, 1991). Farmers in Rwanda use
this plant as an insect repellent to protect beans in
the granary (Munyemana, 1986). Extracts of Cori-
andrum spp. seeds are also toxic for T. confusum, and
S. oryzae (Su, 1986). Organic farming promoters have
long recognized the insect repellent effect of Ruta spp.
(Maffia, 1981). Ruta repels a broad range of insect
pests, such as P. japonica, fleas and flies. Among
the plants mentioned by Patzuneros, perhaps the most
popular around the world for its insecticidal properties
is Tagetes spp. (Morallo-Rejesus and Decena, 1982).
The main advantage of these botanical insecticides is
that farmers can grow the plants themselves, avoiding
dependence on external inputs.
Nevertheless, the most common curative practice
used in milpas is the application of synthetic insect-
icides. Although their use seems to be widespread in
the area, 40% of the farmers that use pesticides could
explain that they apply a “poison” or an “insecticide,”
but they could not remember the names or they did not
know what they applied. It is very common to ask for
advice for pest control in the local pesticide stores, and
to get just a few ounces of the product without any
label. Among the insecticides that farmers remember
having used are Lorsban (Clorpirifos), Folidol (Para-
thion), and Malatión (Malathion). The majority of
these insecticides are organo-phosphates that are not
very toxic, but some farmers mentioned that they need
to apply them regularly to control beetles in beans
and storage pests. Farmers do not have many prob-
lems in the milpa, but they do have problems in
storage. Furthermore, many of these applications are
preventive. In the field, they apply pesticides only
sporadically to eliminate ants, wireworms, leafhoppers
and aphids, if the populations are high.
In sum, Patzuneros’ knowledge of curative prac-
tices is not as broad or as ecologically grounded as
their knowledge of preventive practices. The main
reason why Patzuneros do not have a broad knowl-
edge of curative pest management practices is that the
majority of them do not consider insects to be pests in
the milpa. Insect pests are a new problem for them, one
that arose with the advent of non-traditional crops.
59
Sources of agricultural advice
Patzuneros’ lack of knowledge in reactive pest
management practices is also understandable by
looking at how their knowledge is gained. The farmers
interviewed claim that their agricultural knowledge
and practices in the milpa are part of their Mayan tradi-
tions. These practices have been transmitted from one
generation to the next by parents and other community
members. Some farmers mentioned that they also
learned some agricultural practices in workshops and
from agronomists (9%), but the majority (75%) is like
Guillermo González who is very proud to have learned
everything from his father and by himself:
Mi papá me daba consejos desde que yo era niño.
Nunca me mandó a la escuela porque me vio que
era bueno y inteligente para trabajar. Nadie me ha
tenido que decir como hacer las cosas después, y
solo sé como y me ha ido bien.
My father gave me advice since I was a child. He
never sent me to school because he saw that I was
good and intelligent for working. Nobody told me
how to do things after that, I just know how and I
have done well.
The few traditional farmers that have received
advice about their growing pest problems in milpas,
mentioned workshops organized by foreigners and/or
by the General Office of Agricultural Services
(DIGESA), the governmental agricultural extension
office that no longer exists. Although farmers exper-
iment and adapt to new situations, the process of
developing new knowledge to deal with pests is slow.
Apparently, given their lack of access to information,
farmers are unable to keep up with the rapid changes
induced by globalization.
Policy implications
To reduce the use of pesticides in the Guatemalan
highlands, policy makers should encourage and
support organizations that recognize farmers’ deep
ecological knowledge, as well as their limitations.
Since the focus of IPM programs in the area is on
curative practices (insecticides with low persistence
in the environment, biological and other selective
insecticides, parasitoids and predators), the deficien-
cies in farmers’ knowledge of natural enemies and
curative practices for pest control should be addressed.
However, the emphasis should be on preventive,
cultural practices that farmers are already familiar
with and usually do not require costly inputs. Further-
more, bottom-up programs for pest management are
necessary in the Guatemalan highlands. Some organi-
zations like Altertec and the Cakchiquel Organization
60 H ELDA M ORALES AND I VETTE P ERFECTO
for Integrated Development (COCADI) are doing an
impressive job, but they lack support. The Farmer’s
IPM Field Schools in Indonesia (Kenmore, 1991) and
the Crop Management Project in Nicaragua (Falguni
Guharay, Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investiga-
ción y Enseñanza (CATIE)-Proyecto Manejo Integrado
de Plagas-Nicaragua, personal communication) are
examples of the success of this bottom-up approach to
the reduction of pesticide use at the national level.
An important lesson to be taken from our experi-
ences is that scientists (and agricultural planners) must
not take for granted that farmers use words the same
way that they do. Identifying these discrepancies in
meaning can help “experts” understand how farmers
think, and can help them learn how to communicate
more successfully with farmers.
Our interviews of a small subset of Patzunero
farmers may provide just a suggestion of what they
know and do not know about pest management in their
milpas. Nevertheless, our data support the growing
body of literature affirming the value of traditional
agricultural knowledge from around the world. This
knowledge should be taken into account by agricul-
tural planners and may even be applicable to other
agroecosystems.
Conclusions
Farmers in Patzún have a vast knowledge of preventive
agricultural practices for pest management. These
practices include soil management, plant nutrition, and
strict sowing and harvesting schedules. The efficacy
of some of these practices is corroborated by agroeco-
logical theory and published agronomic experiments,
and seem to be environmentally innocuous. One of the
most interesting findings of this study is Cakchiquel
farmers’ concept of a pest; if an insect does not cause
economic damage, it is not a pest. This explains why
the majority of the farmers in Patzún affirm that they
do not have pests in their milpa.
The knowledge that farmers have of curative prac-
tices for pest control is much more limited than their
knowledge of preventive practices. The main reason
for this gap is that pest problems are relatively new in
the area and farmers do not have access to information
on curative practices. Another knowledge gap that this
study identified is their lack of knowledge of biolog-
ical control. This may also explain the failure of the
adoption of curative practices and biological control
recommended by IPM projects in the area.
The preventive pest management knowledge of
the Cakchiquel farmers merits consideration by pest
management planners and researchers. This seems
especially important now that farmers are confronting
new pests, and using synthetic pesticides. Both scien-
tists and farmers stand to benefit from understanding
why pests are a growing problem in the area and
whether the environmentally-sound, traditional prac-
tices for pest management could be applied to a
changing agroecosystem.
Acknowledgments
We want to express our gratitude to all the people
and institutions that allowed us to complete this work:
to the farmers that shared their knowledge with us,
especially to Jacinto Pelicó, Angela López, Alejandro
Cipac, Guillermo Teleguario, and José Raquec; to
Bruce Ferguson for his criticism and his patience
editing this article; to John Vandermeer, John Witter,
Roger Williams, and the New World Agricultural and
Ecology Group, for providing insightful ideas and
criticism; to Fulbright-LASPAU, IPM-CRSP/USAID,
the Latin American and Caribbean Studies, the
Rackham School of Graduate Studies, and the School
of Natural Resources and Environment at The Univer-
sity of Michigan for providing funds through grants
for Helda Morales; and to the anonymous reviewers
for providing constructive criticism.
References
Aguilar, E. (1993). Sistematización del conocimiento agrícola
campesino en comunidades seleccionadas del departamento
de El Quiché, a base de tecnologías campesinas. División de
Ciencia y Tecnología del Centro Universitario de Occidente,
Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala, Guatemala: Tésis
de Licenciatura.
Andow, D. (1991). “Vegetational diversity and arthropod
population response.” Annual Review of Entomology 36:
561–586.
Andow, D. and P. Rosset (1990). “Integrated pest management.”
In R. Carroll, J. Vandermeer, and P. Rosset (eds.), Agro-
ecology (pp. 413–440). New York: McGraw-Hill, Biological
Resources Management Series.
Altertec (1996). “Rescate del conocimiento campesino, Salamá,
Purulha, Baja Verapaz.” Boletín Permacultural: Alternativa
1(2): 2.
Altieri, M. (1984). “Towards a grassroots approach to rural
development in the Third World.” Agriculture and Human
Values 1(4): 45–48.
Altieri, M. and J. Trujillo (1987). “The agroecology of corn
production in Tlaxcala, México.” Human Ecology 15(2):
189–220.
Asturias, M. A. (1949). Hombres de Maíz. Buenos Aires,
Argentina: Editorial Losada, S. A.
Barzman, M., N. Mills, and N. Thi Thu Cuc (1996). “Tradi-
tional knowledge and rationale for weaver ant husbandry
in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam.” Agriculture and Human
Values 13(4): 2–9.
 T RADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE IN G UATEMALA
Bentley, J. (1989). “What farmers don’t know can’t help them:
The strengths and weaknesses of indigenous technical knowl-
edge in Honduras.” Agriculture and Human Values 6(3):
25–31.
Bentley, J. (1992). “Alternatives to pesticides in Central
America: Applied studies of local knowledge.” Culture and
Agriculture 44: 10–13.
Birch, L. (1953). “Experimental background to the study of
the distribution and abundance of insects. I. The influence
of temperature, moisture and food on the innate capacity for
increase of three grain beetles.” Ecology 34: 698–711.
Borror, D., C. Triplehorn, and N. Johnson (1989). An Intro-
duction to the Study of Insects. Fort Worth: Saunders College
Publishing.
CATIE, Proyecto Regional Manejo Integrado de Plagas (1990).
Guía para el manejo integrado de plagas del cultivo del maíz.
Turrialba, Costa Rica: Centro Agronómico de Investigación y
Enseñanza (CATIE).
Chambers, R. (1983). Rural Development: Putting the Last
First. New York: Longman.
Clark, H. and M. Schober (1992). “Asking questions and influ-
encing answers.” In J. Tanur (ed.), Questions about Questions
(pp. 15–48). New York: Russel Sage.
Conroy, M., D. Murray, and P. Rosset (1996). A Cautionary
Tale: Failed US Development Policy in Central America.
Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienne Publishers.
Costello, M. and M. Altieri (1995). “Abundance, growth rate
and parasitism of Brevicoryne brassicae and Myzus persicae
(Homoptera: Aphidae) on broccoli grown in living mulches.”
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 52: 187–196.
Culliney, T. and D. Pimentel (1986). “Ecological effects of
organic agricultural practices on insect populations.” Agricul-
ture, Ecosystems and Environment 15: 253–266.
De Walt, B. (1994). “Using indigenous knowledge and natural
resource management to improve agriculture and natural
resource management.” Human Organization 53(2): 123–
131.
Dix, A., R. Carroll, M. Dix, and G. Dal Bosco (1995). Corn
Stalks Influence Patchy Distribution of White Grubs in Broc-
coli Fields. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg: IPM-CRSP Working
Paper 95-5.
Eigenbrode, S. and D. Pimentel (1988). “Effects of manure and
chemical fertilizers on insect pest populations on collards.”
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 20: 109–125.
Fisher, R. (1994). “Sostenibilidad ecológica en cultivos no-
tradicionales de exportación para pequeños productores de
Guatemala: Algunas consideraciones y experiencias en la
protección ambiental y el manejo integrado de plagas y
plaguicidas.” In Sostenibilidad de la producción agrícola
no-tradicional de exportación por pequeños productores en
Guatemala, Memorias. Guatemala: Instituto de Nutrición de
Centro América y Panamá (INCAP).
Freire, P. (1968). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The
Seabury Press.
García, A. (1994). “Sostenibilidad ambiental: Responsabilidad
del sector privado y del sector productor.” In Sostenibilidad
de la producción agrícola no-tradicional de exportación por
pequeños productores en Guatemala, Memorias. Guatemala:
Instituto de Nutrición de Centro América y Panamá
(INCAP).
61
Gliessman, S. (1981). “The ecological basis for the application
of traditional agricultural technology in the management of
tropical agroecosystems.” Agro-Ecosystems 7: 173–185.
Golob, P. (1997). “Current status on future perspectives for inert
dust for control of stored product insects.” Journal of Stored
Products Research 33(1): 69–79.
Gómez-Pompa, A. and A. Kaus (1992). “Taming the wilderness
myth.” BioScience 42(4): 271–279.
Greenfield, J. (1989). Vetiver Grass (Vetiveria spp.): The
Ideal Plant for Vegetative Soil and Moisture Conservation.
Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Hansen, M. (1987). Escape from the Pesticide Treadmill: Alter-
natives to Pesticides in Developing Countries. New York:
Institute for Consumer Policy Research Consumers Union.
Heliövaara, K., R. Väisänen, and C. Simon (1994). “Evolu-
tionary ecology of periodical insects.” Trends in Ecology and
Evolution 9(12): 475–480.
Hildebrand, P., S. Ruano, T. López Yos, E. Samayoa, and
R. Duarte (1977). Sistemas de cultivos para los agricultores
tradicionales del occidente de Chimaltenango. Guatemala:
Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnología Agrícolas, Ministerio de
Agricultura.
Hoppe, T. (1986). “Storage insects of basic food grains in
Honduras.” Tropical Science 26(1): 25–38.
Hoppin, P. (1991). Pesticide Use on Four Non-Traditional Crops
in Guatemala: Policy and Program Implications. Baltimore:
School of Hygiene and Public Health, Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity, Doctoral Dissertation.
Horn, D. (1988). Ecological Approach to Pest Management.
New York: The Guilford Press.
Hruska, A. and M. Gómez Peralta (1997). “Maize response to
corn leafhopper (Homoptera: Cicadellidae): Infestation and
achaparramiento disease.” Journal of Economic Entomology
90(2): 604–610.
Immink, M. and J. Alarcón (1993). “Household income, food
availability, and commercial crop production by smallholder
farmers in the western highlands of Guatemala.” Economic
Development and Cultural Change 41(2): 319–342.
IPM-CRSP (1996). “Integrated pest management in non-
traditional export crops.” In II Seminario de Manejo
Integrado de Plagas en Cultivos No-Tradicionales de
Exportación (p. 90). Guatemala: IPM-CRSP/Guatemala.
Kenmore, P. (1991). How Rice Farmers Clean up the Environ-
ment, Conserve Biodiversity, Raise More Food, Make
Higher Profits: Indonesia’s IPM-a Model for Asia. Jakarta,
Indonesia: FAO Inter-country program for Integrated Pest
Control in Rice in South and Southeast Asia.
Kelly, D. (1994). “The evolutionary ecology of mast seeding.”
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9(12): 465–470.
King, A. and J. Saunders (1984). Las plagas invertebradas de
cultivos anuales alimenticios en América Central. London:
Overseas Development Administration.
Leach, B. and J. Johnson (1925). Emulsion of Worm Seed
Oil and of Carbon Disulfide for Destroying Larvae of the
Japanese Beetle in the Roots of Perennial Plant. Washington,
DC: US Department of Agriculture Bulletin 1332.
Letourneau, D., L. Drinkwater, and C. Shennan (1996). “Effects
of soil management on crop nitrogen and insect damage in
organic vs. conventional tomato fields.” Agriculture, Ecosys-
tems and Environment 57: 179–187.
62 H ELDA M ORALES AND I VETTE P ERFECTO
Maffia, N. (1981). Companion Planting and Intensive Cultiva-
tion. Emmaus: Rodale Press.
Moles, J. (1989). “Agricultural sustainability and traditional
agriculture: Learning from the past and its relevance to Sri
Lanka.” Human Organization 48(1): 70–78.
Morales, H. (1998). Pest Control and Soil Management in the
Guatemalan Highlands: Understanding Traditional Agricul-
tural Practices. School of Natural Resources and Environ-
ment, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor: Doctoral
Dissertation.
Morales, H., R. Pérez, and C. MacVean (1994). Impacto
ambiental de los cultivos no tradicionales en el altiplano
de Guatemala. Guatemala: Asociación para el Avance de
las Ciencias Sociales (AVANCSO), Textos para Debate
No. 5.
Morallo-Rejesus, B. and A. Decena (1982). “The activity, isola-
tion, purification and identification of the insecticidal prin-
ciples from Tagetes erecta.” The Philippine Journal of Crop
Science 7(1): 31–36.
Munyemana, P. (1986). Essai de préservation du haricot
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.) contre Acanthoscelides obtectus Say
en utilisant les produits d’origine végétale. Memoire présenté
en vue de l’obtention du grade d’ingénieur agronome (UNR-
Butare). Cited by J. Kayitare and L. Ntezurubanza (1991).
“Evaluation de la toxicité et de l’effet repulsif de certaines
plantes du Rwanda contre les bruches du haricot: Acantho-
scelides obtectus Say et Zabrotes subfasciatus Boheman.”
Insect Science and Its Application 12(516): 695–697.
Murray, D. (1995). Cultivating Crisis: The Human Cost of
Pesticides in Latin America. Austin: The University of Texas
Press.
Nelson, K. (1994). Participation and Empowerment: A
Comparative Study of IPM Technology Generation in
Nicaragua. School of Natural Resources and Environment,
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor: Doctoral Disserta-
tion.
Oldfield, M. and J. Alcorn (1987). “Conservation of traditional
agroecosystems.” Bio Science 37(3): 199–208.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research
Methods. London: Sage Publications.
Phelan, P., J. Mason, and B. Stinner (1995). “Soil-fertility
management and host preference by European corn borer,
Ostrinia nubilalis (Hubner), on Zea mays L.: A comparison
of organic and conventional chemical farming.” Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 56: 1–8.
Posey, D. and B. William (1989). Resource Management in
Amazonia: Indigenous and Folk Strategies. New York: New
York Botanical Garden, Advances in Economic Botany Series
No. 7.
Potter, D., A. Powell, P. Spicer, and D. Williams (1996).
“Cultural practices affect root feeding white grubs (Cole-
optera: Scarabaeidae) in turfgrass.” Journal of Economic
Entomology 89(1): 156–164.
Raymundo, S. and J. Alcazar (1983). “Dusting with ashes
to reduce leaf-miner fly damage on potatoes (Liriomyza
huidrobensis).” Appropriate Technology 10(3): 17.
Risch, S., D. Andow, and M. Altieri (1983). “Agroecosystems
diversity and pest control: Data, tentative conclusions, and
new research directions.” Environmental Entomology 12(3):
625–629.
Santízo, E., J. Sandoval, and E. Calderón (1996). “Trans-
ference of technology on snow peas.” In Integrated pest
management in non-traditional export crops. II Seminario de
Manejo Integrado de Plagas en Cultivos No-Tradicionales de
Exportación (p. 72). Guatemala: IPM-CRSP/Guatemala.
Saunders, J., A. King, and C. Vargas (1983). Plagas de
cultivos en América Central. Turrialba, Costa Rica: Centro
Agronómico de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE).
Schwarz, N., H. Hippler, and E. Noelle-Neumann (1992). “A
cognitive model of response-order effects in survey measure-
ment.” In N. Schwarz and S. Sudman (eds.), Context Effects in
Social and Psychological Research (pp. 187–201). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Sillitoe, P. (1998). “The development of indigenous knowl-
edge.” Current Anthropology 39(2): 223–252.
Slikkerveer, L. (1989). “Changing values and attitudes of social
and natural scientists towards indigenous peoples and their
knowledge systems.” In D. Warren, L. Slikkerveer, and S.
Titilola (eds.), Indigenous Knowledge Systems for Agriculture
and International Development (pp. 121–137). Ames: Tech-
nology and Social Change Program, Iowa State University,
Studies in Technology and Social Change No. 11.
Smith, L. (1993). “Effect of humidity on life history
characteristics of Anisopteromalus calandrae (Hymenop-
tera: Pteromalidae) parasitizing maize weevils (Coleoptera:
Curculionidae) larvae in shelled corn.” Environmental Ento-
mology 22(3): 618–624.
Su, H. (1986). “Laboratory evaluation of the toxicity and repel-
lency of coriander seed to four species of stored-product
insects.” Journal of Entomological Science 21(2): 169–174.
Su, H. (1991). “Toxicity and repellency of Chenopodium oil to
four species of stored product insects.” Journal of Entomolog-
ical Science 26(1): 178–182.
Terán, S. and C. Rasmussen (1994). La milpa de los Mayas.
Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico: Danida.
Throne, J. (1994). “Life history of immature maize weevils
(Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on corn stored at constant
temperature and percentage of humidity.” Environmental
Entomology 23(6): 1457–1471.
Thrupp, L. A. (1989). “Legitimizing local knowledge: From
displacement to empowerment for third world people.” Agri-
culture and Human Values 6(3): 13–23.
Thrupp, L. A., G. Bergeron, and W. Water (1995). Bitter-
sweet Harvest for Global Supermarkets: Challenges in
Latin America’s Agricultural Export Boom. Washington, DC:
World Resources Institute.
Thurston, D. (1991). Sustainable Practices for Plant Disease
Management in Traditional Farming Systems. Boulder,
Colorado: Westview Press.
Ucán Ek, E., M. Narváez, A. Puch, and C. Chan (1982).
“El cultivo del maíz en el ejido de Mucel, Pixoy, Vallad-
olid, Yucatán.” In Nuestro Maíz (pp. 243–287). México, D.F.:
Dirección general de culturas populares.
Vandermeer, J. and D. Andow (1986). “Prophylactic and
responsive components of an integrated pest management
program.” Journal of Economic Entomology 79(2): 299–302.
Vanek, E. (1989). “Enhancing resource management in devel-
oping nations through improved attitudes towards indigenous
knowledge systems: The case of the World Bank.” In D.
Warren, L. Slikkervear, and S. Titilola (eds.), Indigenous
 T RADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE IN G UATEMALA
Knowledge Systems for Agriculture and International Devel-
opment. Ames: Technology and Social Change Program,
Iowa State University, Studies in Technology and Social
Change No. 11.
Vittum, P. (1984). “Effect of lime applications in Japanese
beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) grub populations in
Massachusetts soils (Popillia japonica).” Journal of
Economic Entomology 77(3): 687–690.
Warren, D. (1991). Using Indigenous Knowledge in Agricul-
tural Development. Washington, DC: The World Bank, World
Bank Discussion Paper No. 127.
63
Wightman, J. and A. Wightman (1994). “An insect, agro-
nomic and sociological survey of groundnut fields in Southern
Africa.” Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 51: 311–
331.
Address for correspondence: Helda Morales, Departamento
de Agroecología, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Carretera
Panamericana y Periférico Sur, Apartado Postal 63, C. P. 29290,
San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, México
Phone: +52-967-81883 ext. 4217; Fax: +52-967-82322; E-mail:
hmorales@sclc.ecosur.mx